Reports of illness in humans and livestock continue to underscore the far reaching and difficult to predict impacts that a nuclear accident can cause. In July, 36 percent of Japanese childrenscreened were found to have abnormal thyroid growths. This fall, an illness dubbed the “Fukushima syndrome” was reported to be killing cattle near the Fukushima prefecture. Mutations are already observed in butterflies and other insects, whose shorter life cycles allow genetic disruptions to display more quickly than in mammals or humans.

The World Health Organization downplayed radiation and exposure risks in a report they released last summer, which is being discredited as biased by members of Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. Dr. Alex Rosen, from Germany said, “It is unclear why a report written mainly by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and collaborating nuclear institutions would need to be published in the name of the WHO, if not to provide an unsuspicious cover” for the true radiation levels Fukushima residents were exposed to. The United Nations issued a recent report concluding that delaying the release of factual radiation data and exposure risks put residents and workers in greater danger than was necessary. This echoes the findings of an independent panel earlier this year, that called the Fukushima nuclear disaster a “man-made” catastrophe.

The Asahi Shimbun reports the technical details of the reactors here, and the outlook is still grim. In the article, Nuclear Regulatory Authority Shunichi Tanaka Chairman said, “The situation surrounding the decommissioning process is volatile, so there is a need for constant reviews in securing safety.” They are running out of room to store radioactive water and, despite reducing the amount of radioactivity being released from the reactors, there are still radioactive plumes being released.

Former chief research scientist at the now-defunct Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, Fumiya Tanabe, said, “Despite the (officially declared) cold shutdowns of the reactors, the cooling functions have been maintained there with no knowledge of where the melted fuel lies and in what state. There is a risk of unforeseen circumstances arising if another major earthquake hits.”

The national Japanese elections earlier this month yielded unexpected results, with the Liberal Democratic Party winning despite it’s pro-nuclear platform in a largely anti-nuclear nation. One problem may lie in the belief that eliminating nuclear power could further negatively impact Japan’s recovering economy. This is complicated by the reliance nuclear communities have upon the money they receive in taxes, among other incentives, for hosting a reactor, which often translates into a tax base that is double that of non-nuclear communities. Despite this, many Japanese people are concerned that a focus on the economy will undermine safety concerns related to new geologic evidence of fault lines under other reactors.

October was a month of long overdue admissions, as Tokyo Power Electric Company (Tepco) finally admitted fault in the accident, citing a lack of safety culture and long term “bad habits” as exacerbating the accident. Yoshihoko Noda also offered thanks to the “Fukushima 50,” saying “Thanks to your dedication, we have managed to preserve Japan.” While this expression of gratitude is long overdue, it falls short of the debt owed to these brave people who risked their lives to do their job. The impacts their sacrifices could have on their long-term health will only be known over time.

Fortunately, it’s not all doom and gloom. Two high school girls that were affected by the disaster are launching a peace discussion forumdevoted to expanding the dialogue about nuclear power and weapons. One of the young women said, “My parents’ and grandparents’ generations may be to blame for allowing the nuclear power plants, but both adults and children are responsible for thinking together about the problem.”

Our wish for the upcoming year is that all of us—all energy users—will step up to this challenge, determine where they fit into this conversation, and take meaningful actions in their daily lives to reduce their energy usage and push for clean, safe energy solutions.

Additional Resources:

A history of collusion between World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency, including video;

Fairewinds Energy Education’s video and analysis of recent Tepco report regarding the Fukushima nuclear accident, along with highlighting important safety concerns with the U.S. nuclear reactor fleet; and

Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear, joins Thom Hartmann. It's been less than two years, but a new government in Japan has already forgotten all the lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear crisis. As millions of tons of radioactive debris drift toward the West Coast - find out what the Japanese government is now doing that could put the entire world in danger.

Controversial plan to run reactor at reduced power could require formal legal hearings

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Southern California Edison’s experimental plan to start up one of the crippled San Onofre nuclear reactors and run it at reduced power may violate terms of the plant’s operating license, potentially triggering a formal license amendment proceeding.

On Wednesday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a Request for Additional Informationto Edison for its review of the company’s restart scheme, asking Edison to provide evidence that reactor Unit 2 can be operated safely at full power, as required by San Onofre’s current license. If Edison can’t show that the reactor can be operated safely in compliance with the terms of the license, Edison may be forced to submit to a license amendment proceeding requiring a hearing before an NRC panel of judges, with rules of evidence and expert witnesses.

Both reactors were shut down last January, after a leak of radioactive steam led to the discovery of extensive and unprecedented damage to hundreds of steam generator tubes in San Onofre’s twin reactors.

“Edison is saying they don’t know if their car is safe to drive at freeway speeds, so they’ll keep it under 50 mph,” said Kendra Ulrich, nuclear campaigner for Friends of the Earth. “But the NRC is asking, before you drive the car, can you prove it’s safe to operate on the freeway, as required by your license?””

“This experimental restart plan is yet another example of Edison’s disregard for safety and attempts to sidestep NRC regulations in the interest of making money,” said Ulrich. “Whether the plant can be safely operated at reduced power is one of the crucial questions that must be answered to ensure the safety of the 8.4 million Southern Californians who live within 50 miles of San Onofre.”

San Onofre’s steam generators were replaced as part of a $670 million overhaul in 2009 and 2010. Friends of the Earth contends that Edison crammed in hundreds more steam tubes than in the original generators in order to generate more power and profit. But the new defective steam generator design caused the tubes to vibrate against their supports and each other, producing premature tube wear on a scale never before seen in a steam generator. Independent experts have said that the major design changes should have triggered the license amendment process when the initial design was initially proposed in 2006.

According to the Associated Press, cracked and corroded generator tubing forced the premature closing of San Onofre reactor Unit 1 in 1992. The following year, the Trojan nuclear plan in Oregon was shut down after cracks were found in its steam generator tubes.

Thursday, December 27, 2012

*ALERT! idlenomore flash mobs & round dancers very welcome!!*La Famille & the Mohawk Traditional Council......Invite youOn the day of the Full MoonFriday December 28, 2012To come into the streets toCelebrate humanity's victoryover unbridled fatalistic technology. A first in this hemisphere, Only in Quebec!The publicly driven closure ofthe most destructive form of technologyever on our Mother Earth.“Shutting-Down of Gentilly-2 Nuclear Power Plant”Join us, in Montreal @ 1:00 pm @ Dorchester Square, across from Place du Canada, for the “Eulogy”.At 2:00 pm, we march for a World, free of the true weapon of mass destruction, down to Phillips Square to celebrate a new hope for Humanity!

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

They claim the utility company, "a wholly owned public benefit subsidiary of the government of Japan," misrepresented radiation levels to lull the U.S. Navy "into a false sense of security."Lead plaintiff Lindsay R. Cooper claims Tokyo Electric (TEPCO) intentionally concealed the dangerous levels of radiation in the environment from U.S. Navy rescue crews working off the coast of Japan after the March 10, 2011 earthquake and tsunami set off the nuclear disaster.

this is huge! - though i am surprised that the Navy would be taken off guard. even though lies about the dangers of radiation abound and are perpetuated by the US gov't and the military, and noting that the suit is by a group of individuals and not the Navy itself, the statement that "radiation levels had already reached levels exceeding the levels of exposure to which those living the same distance from Chernobyl experienced who subsequently developed cancer" supports my contention that nuclear power is a crime against humanity - knowledge which has been _obvious since Chernobyl.*

"Given that nuclear power is not safe was definitively proven with The Chernobyl Nuclear Catastrophe, any claims of safety or participation in nuclear power activities afterward should be deemed criminal"

SAN DIEGO (CN) - The Fukushima nuclear disaster exposed Navy rescue workers to dangerous levels of radiation, which the government-owned power plant covered up, eight U.S. sailors claim in court. Eight crew members of the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan, whose home port is San Diego, sued the Tokyo Electric Power Co. in Federal Court. They claim the utility company, "a wholly owned public benefit subsidiary of the government of Japan," misrepresented radiation levels to lull the U.S. Navy "into a false sense of security." Lead plaintiff Lindsay R. Cooper claims Tokyo Electric (TEPCO) intentionally concealed the dangerous levels of radiation in the environment from U.S. Navy rescue crews working off the coast of Japan after the March 10, 2011 earthquake and tsunami set off the nuclear disaster. "TEPCO pursued a policy to cause rescuers, including the plaintiffs, to rush into an unsafe area which was too close to the FNPP [Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant] that had been damaged. Relying upon the misrepresentations regarding health and safety made by TEPCO ... the U.S. Navy was lulled into a false sense of security," the complaint states. There were 5,500 sailors aboard the Reagan, the plaintiffs say, but this is not a class action. Six of the eight plaintiffs worked on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier; two worked in air contamination or the "air department." One sued also on behalf of her infant daughter.

Monday, December 24, 2012

As Hurricane Sandy approached the East Coast late last October, more than a dozen nuclear power plants from North Carolina stretching up to New England were in its wide-ranging path. On Oct. 29, the night that the eye of the storm made landfall near Atlantic City, New Jersey, five nuclear plants were forced to either reduce power or make emergency shutdowns.

The most serious event was at the Oyster Creek Generating Station located in Lacey Township, near Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, about 40 miles north of Atlantic City. Amid 75-mile-an-hour winds, power to the region was knocked out, including at the Oyster Creek plant, just before 7 p.m. The plant’s backup diesel generators kicked on to keep its crucial cooling equipment functioning. Nevertheless, by 9 p.m. the plant’s pumps were facing another danger: rising floodwaters. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) spokesperson Neil Sheehan said that Sandy brought a surge of 7.4 feet to Oyster Creek. The plant is obligated to prepare for the consequences of flooding at 8.5 feet, he said, and, at 9.0 or 9.5 feet — Sheehan wasn’t sure — the plant’s pump motors would begin to be flooded.

David Tillman, spokesperson for Exelon, the utility company that owns Oyster Creek, would not answer specific questions about the evening Sandy hit the plant (such as the height to which the water level rose, the height of the pump motors, or the actions taken by the plant in response to the alert). Characteristically for the industry, he insisted that everything worked perfectly and that there were no problems...

Desperate for economic development opportunities, some remote First Nations and Metis communities are thinking about hosting an underground nuclear waste repository to create jobs and make money for the community. But opponents say the environmental and human risks are just too huge and it's not worth it. APTN Investigates' Melissa Ridgen explores all sides of the debate.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

On June 8, 2012, Riverkeeper and our allies won a landmark U.S. Court of Appeals decisionnullifying the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s “Waste Confidence Rule,” which has allowed each U.S. nuclear reactor to store highly radioactive nuclear waste on site. The now-invalidated rule presumed that waste stored at reactors would go to a national nuclear waste dump someday and that the storage of spent fuel at individual reactors is temporary and causes “no significant environmental impact.”

Because of our landmark court victory, there is no longer any legal basis for plants like Indian Point to avoid studying the environmental impacts of long-term nuclear waste storage in fuel pools or dry storage. At Indian Point, spent fuel has leaked carcinogenic nuclear waste into groundwater and the Hudson River, and its unfortified storage structure has been considered as a target of terrorists. The Court’s decision forces the NRC to address the risks of nuclear waste disposal before any U.S. nuclear plant, including Indian Point, may be licensed or re-licensed. This reckoning is long overdue...

Over a year since three reactors went into meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, a broad, disparate anti-nuclear movement is growing in Japan. Nowhere is that more apparent, perhaps, than in Fukushima prefecture, where a group of local women boldly protest the deafening silence of the Japanese government over the worst nuclear accident of this century. Largely ignored by their own media, these brave women brush aside their cultural shyness and share their brutally honest views on the state of the cleanup, the cover-ups, the untruths and the stagnant political climate in today’s Japan. Supported with rare footage from inside the exclusion zone, as well as from abandoned neighboring towns, the Women of Fukushima (“Fukushima no Onnatachi”) offers startlingly candid insights, in the women’s own voices, about what has become of their lives, homes, and families in the aftermath of 3/11.http://www.women-of-fukushima.com/

:::::::::::::::::TALK:::::::::::::::::After the screening, we'll be joined on skype by the co-director Jeffrey Jousan & Setusko Kida, one of the six Women of Fukushima, to answer questions. Then we're going to talk with Mari Matsumoto to discuss how women are taking active roles in the frontline of post-Fukushima resistance, shifting the map of feminism in Japan.

Speakers' bio:Mari Matsumoto has been writing and taking active roles from a feminist perspective in various social movements. She is currently a member of No Nukes, More Feminisms.

Sunday, December 16, 2012

London demo in solidarity with Japanese anti-nuclear protesters and Fukushima victims

THIS FRIDAY WE WILL BE HOLDING A SOLIDARITY PROTEST OUTSIDE THE JAPANESE EMBASSY IN LONDON, FOLLOWED BY A SHORT PROTEST OUTSIDE THE OFFICES OF TEPCO, THE OPERATOR OF THE STRICKEN FUKUSHIMA-1 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.

11am-12:50pm (though some people will be leafleting from 9am), Embassy of Japan, 101-104 Piccadilly W1. (Nearest tube Green Park. Walk west from there in the direction of Hyde Park Corner.)

Thursday, December 13, 2012

It takes the same amount of water required by a city of 5 million to fuel a typical U.S. nuclear power plant for one hour: 30 million gallons, Fast Company reports. Charles Fishman, author of the book The Big Thirst, notes that "the U.S. has 104 nuclear power plants--more than any other country, a quarter of all plants worldwide." As the world's largest energy consumer, "49% of the water used in the U.S. goes to generate electricity," Fishman notes. That's "the single largest use of water" in the country.

This two-day symposium – the first independent conference on this subject and a project of The Helen Caldicott Foundation – will be held at the New York Academy of Medicine on March 11 and 12, 2013, to coincide with the second anniversary of the nuclear melt-down at the Fukushima Daiichi reactors.

Scientists, physicians, engineers, political leaders, and policy makers will present and discuss the preliminary data thus far amassed on the bio-medical and ecological consequences of the disaster both for Japan and, potentially, the rest of the world.

In the year-and-a-half since the disaster, reports have slowly emerged about the health and environmental effects — from increased incidences of thyroid abnormalities in Japanese children to deformities in the insect, bird, and butterfly populations around Fukushima to increased levels of cesium present in tuna caught off the coast of California. It is clear that much research by the world’s scientists still needs to be done, work which will take years, if not decades, to complete as the effects of radiation exposure on human –as well as flora and fauna –populations make themselves manifest. It is equally clear that an open forum such as this symposium will play an influential role in pointing the way forward in the evaluation of both the immediate and on-going effects of the melt-down.

It will play a vital role in educating the media and stimulating debate among policy makers and government leaders in the world community on whether nuclear power can continue to be considered a viable means of energy production given the global public health implications of its use and the consequences that ensue when catastrophic incidents such as Fukushima occur.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

The nuclear reactors that exploded at Fukushima in March 2011 and released toxic radiation across our planet were designed and manufactured by General Electric. There are still 23 nearly-identical GE Mark I reactors operating in the U.S., and eight more very similar GE Mark II reactors. All suffer from fundamental design flaws. All are dangerous to all living beings.

Nearly two years after Fukushima, the NRC has yet to require any safety improvements to these reactors. The NRC staff, through its Fukushima Task Force, has recommended installation of filtered containment vents to make hydrogen explosions less likely and radiation releases smaller than they otherwise would be. The NRC Commissioners are expected to vote before Christmas on whether they will implement that recommendation. But the nuclear industry has been lobbying hard in favor of rejection and the status quo.

Our position is that all of these reactors should be closed permanently. Taken together, they supply only about 5% of the nation's electricity; there is ample--and much safer--reserve capacity. But we also believe the Commissioners need to make a statement in favor of public protection by voting to require these filtered containment vents.

We encourage you to send a letter to the NRC below in support of requiring filtered containment vents. Letters will go to your elected officials at the same time urging them to contact the NRC in support. This will help raise the profile of the issue, which seems to have been dropped entirely by the mass media.

Note: the letters also call for the preferred course of permanent shutdown of these unnecessary and dangerous reactors. As always, you may edit the sample letters to reflect your own concerns.

As the decision about restarting a defective reactor at San Onofre gets closer and closer, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Division IV, who is responsible for scheduling hearings on this matter, continues a recent trend to minimize public oversight. On Friday they announced the next meeting would be held on December 18th on the East Coast. For those of us closest to the danger, that is totally unacceptable. We must insist that this trend be reversed. I am asking you to please help us override this abuse of public trust. Here is the message our coalition is sending out for action first thing Monday morning before your workday begins.

Thanks,

Gary

Greetings!

As the decision about restarting a defective reactor at San Onofre gets closer and closer, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Division IV, who is responsible for scheduling hearings on this matter, continues a recent trend to minimize public oversight. On Friday they announced the next meeting would be held on December 18th on the East Coast. For those of us closest to the danger, that is totally unacceptable. We must insist that this trend be reversed. I am asking you to please help us override this abuse of public trust. Here is the message our coalition is sending out for action first thing Monday morning before your workday begins.

Thanks,
Gary

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff recently announced that the next "public meeting" on Edison's proposal to restart the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant will be on December 18, 2012, in Rockville, MARYLAND -- not here in Orange or San Diego Counties, where the plant is located. This is unacceptable -- and we need to tell our California Senators Boxer and Feinstein and the 5 Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners so!

SO -- cut and paste any or all of the following Message into your own Email Sender, as well as the email addresses listed at the end of this message (note you need to use a Webform to email the Senators). AND/OR

On Monday, use this abbreviated message to Phone each of the Senators' and Commissioners' offices in DC (also listed at the end of this message):

"The 12/18/12 NRC public meeting regarding Edison's proposed restart of its defective San Onofre nuclear reactor should NOT be held in Maryland. It should be re-scheduled for next year in a location near the public and media most impacted by the NRC's decision.
NO TRUST. NO RESTART!"

Thank You for your Support --

The Coalition to Decommission San Onofre

Dear Senators Boxer and Feinstein, and NRC Commissioners,

As one of almost 9 million residents, parents, business owners, workers and/or students within 50 miles of the defective nuclear reactors at San Onofre in Southern California, I am very disappointed and angry that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff is holding a "public meeting" on the operator's proposed restart of one of these defective reactors one week before Christmas at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, NOT in the vicinity of the plant, where those of us most impacted by the NRC's decision on this proposal can attend in person.

I accept the fact that not everyone who attends an NRC public meeting in person and wants to speak will have a chance to do so, but at least those who do speak are in a forum where local citizens are present, as well as our local media. Limiting us and our local media to indirect, one-way access to the meeting via Webcast is NOT in the public's best interest. The NRC has an obligation to put our needs before NRC staff's convenience. While Webcasting and a Telephone Bridge may be appropriate for those who live far from the plant under discussion or could not physically attend the meeting, it is certainly a disservice to those of us who stand directly in harm's way if things go terribly wrong.

I demand that the NRC Staff reschedule this "Category 1 Public Meeting" until after the New Year to a location readily accessible to the public impacted by the NRC's decision on Edison's proposal to restart this defective nuclear reactor in our midst.

On the NRC's website, "Important Information for Meeting Attendees," describes "Category 1 Public Meetings" (such as this one) in the NRC's open meeting policy as: 'The public is invited to observe these meetings and will have one or more opportunities to communicate with the NRC after the business portions, but before the meetings are adjourned."

How are the "opportunities to communicate with the NRC after the business portions, but before the meetings are adjourned" afforded when public access is primarly via one-way Webcast and/or Telephone Bridge? EFFECTIVE "open public meetings" must be held in the area impacted by the action or decision being contemplated by the NRC.

My trust in the NRC, and that of many others in the vicinity of San Onofre, can only be restored by our personal witness of the NRC in action and the ability to ask questions interactively.

Subscribe

Follow by Email

Einstein said,
"The splitting
of the atom
changed everything
save man's mode
of thinking;
thus we drift towards
unparalleled catastrophe."
He also said,
"Nuclear power is a hell of a way
to boil water!"

NEW: IMMEDIATE NEED FUNDRAISER

My hope here is to recover a portion of my expenses for the purchase of a new laptop, pay for some of the monthly expenses for #OccupyNuclear, and just to have something to live on for a little while. Please see the gofundme page for a little information on my situation.

whats up - recent posts to this blog

original content copyright Robert Cherwink 2009 - 2013
mostly copyfree | contact for permissionsThis site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. For more information go here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
this is WHATS UP nuclear blog